On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, comex wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Sgeo <sgeos...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> [stuff] > Whether or not someone confessing to breaking the rules should be > considered guilty prima facie, this isn't that case. Goethe, if you > don't want the judge to have to look the case up, why did your proto > remove the pre-trial phase?
IIRC I kept it in (I invented the pre-trial phase in the first place in 2006) but comments on the proposal said "streamline it takes too long". Looking now, I apologize to Sgeo, but I'm not sure where the fault lies here (if any fault lies somewhere). Clearly some information was lost, but I'm not sure whose responsibility it was or should have been to track it. I think the judge did the right thing with what e was given, but that some information surrounding the NoV was lost (I didn't see it either until Sgeo pointed it out). Need some reform here: before we were on the long side of process (too long allowed for informing the defendant; waiting for defendant response; etc.) now we are on the short side. Hmm. -G.
